Allahabad High Court | ‘Jethani’ Not Part of ‘Family’ Unless Brothers Share Common House & Kitchen | Cancels Bar on Anganbari Appointment and Orders Reinstatement
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar allowed a writ petition, setting aside the cancellation of an appointment and directing reinstatement. The court quashed the impugned order that had terminated the petitioner’s engagement as an Anganbari Worker. It held that the order was unsustainable both on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and on merits. The Bench further directed reinstatement of the petitioner to the post along with entitlement to consequential benefits, including arrears of salary for the period during which she was denied service. The District Programme Officer was directed to ensure that the petitioner resumes duties and receives salary regularly month by month.
The matter arose from the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment as an Anganbari Worker by an order dated 13 June 2025 passed by the District Programme Officer, Bareilly. The cancellation was based on the ground that the petitioner’s sister-in-law (jethani) was already working as an Anganbari Assistant in the same block. The stated basis of the cancellation was a Government Order which prohibits the appointment of two women from the same family as Anganbari Worker and Anganbari Assistant at the same centre.
The petitioner challenged the order through a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner’s contention was that the order of cancellation was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner further submitted that the Government Order dated 21 May 2023, specifically Clause 12 (iv), only prohibits appointment of two women of the same family at the same centre, and that the petitioner and her sister-in-law could not be treated as members of the same family.
To substantiate her claim, the petitioner relied upon documentary evidence, including the family register. It was submitted that the petitioner’s husband resided in house number 126, whereas her sister-in-law, Ramwati, wife of Prempal, resided in a separate house, number 107. On this basis, it was argued that they constituted separate families. The petitioner further submitted that the definition of ‘family’ under service rules and other provisions of law would not encompass a sister-in-law (jethani) unless both families lived together under one roof with a common kitchen.
The petitioner’s counsel referred to definitions of family as provided in the rules relating to medical assistance for government employees, where family members include husband, wife, parents, step-son, unmarried/divorced/deserted sisters, minor brother, and step-mother. Reliance was also placed on Order XXXII-A Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides a definition of family, including a man, his wife, and children, or brothers, sisters, ancestors, or lineal descendants living together.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that in the absence of living together, the petitioner and her sister-in-law could not be considered members of the same family for the purposes of the Government Order. In support of this proposition, the petitioner relied on a prior judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Kusum Lata v. State of U.P. and Others, Writ C No. 21935 of 2021, decided on 29 November 2021. In that matter, the Court had considered the definition of family under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, and under the Control Order of 2016, relating to allotment of fair price shops. It was submitted that, based on these interpretations, the petitioner’s sister-in-law could not be considered as part of the same family.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel representing the State sought to defend the cancellation order. However, it was not disputed that the cancellation had been made without affording notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Nor could the Standing Counsel dispute that the relevant clause of the Government Order referred only to women of the same family.
The Court considered the rival submissions and examined the definitions of ‘family’ as referred to by the petitioner. Justice Ajit Kumar observed that the order impugned suffered from two infirmities: lack of opportunity of hearing, and incorrect application of the definition of family.
The Court stated: “Since order has adverse civil consequences, petitioner ought to have been afforded her explanation in defence of appointment order.” The Bench observed that failure to provide notice and opportunity of hearing rendered the cancellation unsustainable on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
The Court then turned to the question of whether the petitioner and her sister-in-law could be considered members of the same family under the Government Order. Clause 12 (iv) of the Government Order dated 21 May 2023 provides: “एक आंगनबाड़ी केन्द्र पर एक ही परिवार की दो महिलाओं की नियुक्ति आंगनबाड़ी कार्यकर्त्री व सहायक के पद पर नहीं की जाएगी।” Interpreting this provision, the Court recorded that the crucial issue was the definition of family.
The Court examined the family register and noted that the petitioner’s husband resided in house number 126 while the sister-in-law resided in a separate house, number 107. Referring to statutory definitions, the Court recorded: “From the discussion made above with reference to various service rules and the definition of family given in CPC, it can easily be concluded that daughter-in-law (jethani) would not become member of the family and daughter-in-law (jethani) can be considered to be a member of family provided both brothers are living together having common kitchen and house.”
The Court further recorded that the Standing Counsel had been unable to dispute that the petitioner and her sister-in-law lived in separate houses and were thus distinct families. Accordingly, the Bench found that the impugned order was unsustainable not only for violation of natural justice but also on the merits of the case.
The Bench therefore concluded: “In view of above, therefore, it cannot be said that both sister-in-law (jethani) and petitioner were women of the same family, and hence, order impugned is rendered unsustainable on both grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and also on merits.”
On the basis of the above findings, the Court issued specific directions. Justice Ajit Kumar directed: “Writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned dated 13.6.2025 is hereby quashed.” The Court further stated: “The District Programme Officer is directed to reinstate the petitioner as Anganbari Worker to discharge her duties and shall also be paid salary month by month.” It was also ordered: “As a result the order being quashed, the petitioner shall also be entitled to consequential benefits in terms of arrears of salary for the period she has been denied on account of order impugned.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Anil Kumar Prajapati, Kuldeep Kumar Mishra
Case Title: Kumari Sonam v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:137725
Case Number: WRIT - A No. - 11406 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar
